The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has approved the third runway at Heathrow for her growth plan. While it still needs to go to Parliament to be voted on, this is the third government to green-light the proposals. Once more, it has given way to debate and frustration, not only with NIMBYs (not in my back yard), but potentially within the cabinet itself. 

The third runway at Heathrow has been part of political debate since 2009, when Gordon Brown first approved the expansion. While the busiest airport in Europe, many argue that a third runway is needed. The airport is operating at 99% capacity, causing delays and a sense of unreliability for its 80 million passengers a year. An expansion, Heathrow airport says, would allow an average of 2000 flights a day and 140 million passengers to enter through this London airport a year.  

Reeves sees this as a great opportunity for growth. She argues that this will create 100,000 jobs in the local area and potentially provide more investment in the country, mainly through marketing Heathrow as the ideal airport for layovers for American businesses and passengers, travelling to Asia. This, along with proposed expansion or other London-based airports and even regional airports such as Doncaster Sheffield Airport, are all in Reeves’ plan to drive businesses to the UK and boost exports too.  

However, as with any government policy, there has been backlash. The government are forced to face the outrage of NIMBYs who are worried about where they are going to live in the next few years. While many can appreciate the benefits of a third runway, many are faced with the idea that their homes could be demolished to create space. This could add hundreds of house-hunters to, what is already seen as, a housing crisis. The proposed creation of a tunnel, that would run under the M25, has also been cause for alarm. The motorway would face construction, causing traffic and many delays, with many concerned over how long it could take to reroute one of Britain’s busiest roads. 

The most backlash, however, has come from environmental activists. Not only from those worried about the implications for wildlife and the country’s biodiversity from the rivers being diverted, but mainly from the impact of an increase in CO₂. Aviation is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and while Reeves has met these concerns with commitments to net-zero, many climate activist groups are sceptical about how the two commitments line up. 

Although the Chancellor has said that a third runway will reduce circling over airports, there is little evidence to suggest that this will reduce emissions to the extent Reeves proposes.  

However along with that, Rachel Reeves has said that the advancements in aviation since 2009, has meant that Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is now more available. While SAF was only used for 0.28% of all flights in the UK in 2023, the government wants to increase this to 22% by 2040. Most SAFs are biofuels, using household food scraps, leftovers from the forestry industry, waste oils or crops such as wheat, sugar beet, rape or palm oil to make. However, there is concern over how much sustainable waste is available to turn into fuel and as a consequence, it could lead to the plantation of crops for the single purpose of making SAF; negatively affecting the country’s biodiversity and landscape.

 Electric planes have also been discussed in the argument, with the first electric flight to take place this decade. However, the technology is just not there yet; the batteries are heavy and currently only has a range of 200km, which couldn’t take you from London to Manchester. 

The climate group, Greenpeace, not only argued that the third runway will increase GHG emissions but that it will increase the ultrafine particle pollution, which could be linked to thousands of cases of high blood pressure, diabetes and dementia across Europe. 

Politically, the environmental factors could see a strain between the Chancellor and the Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband. While initially silent, Miliband has since said he is willing to support the expansion if it meets climate commitments.  

The tabloid papers, however, smelling blood, are circling the Secretary of State like sharks. Despite his friendship with the Prime Minister, there is still much speculation over whether Miliband will resign over the third runway. And if he does, what does that say about the Labour party’s commitment to net zero and to the Paris Agreement?